BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
 

C.C No.100/2008

Between

Complainant : Dhaneesh S/o Gopi,

Thattarathu House,

Panamkutty P.O,

Konnathady Village,

Udumbanchola Taluk,

Idukki District.

And

Opposite Party : K.N.Anilkumar,

Director,

Paninfo Tech Hi-Tech Solutions,

Govt. of Kerala Continuing Education,

L.C.C Buildings, Library Road,

Adimali.

O R D E R

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
 

The complainant joined the D.C.S course conducted by the opposite party on 10.10.2005. It was a six months course. The opposite party was represented that the institution was recognised by the Government of Kerala and the examination would be conducted by the Government. The complainant had remitted Rs.5,000/- by way of fees to the opposite party as per the fee structure. The complainant and other students completed their course on 1.06.2006. But the opposite party was not done any arrangements for the examination. After the completion of the course the complainant approached the authorities and enquired about the examination, no satisfactory explanation was given to him. On 10.12.2007 the complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite party to demand back the money paid by him towards the fees and other expenses. The opposite party received the letter. But the opposite party did not return the money or conducted the examination. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complaint has been filed for a direction to the opposite party to refund the fees collected Rs.5,000/- and also to pay compensation for the expenses incurred by the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,000/-.
 

2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant was a student in the institution and that course was for 6 months. He had successfully completed his course on 1.06.2006. The total fees was Rs.6,500/-and the complainant is a student of BPL category, so he had remitted Rs.5,000/-as fees. But the complainant had not produced the Income Certificate at the time of admission. On 20.01.2008, the complainant produced the Income Certificate and the opposite party sent it to the CDIT for registration. After registration, the opposite party sent Reg.No.13766 to the complainant. But the complainant was not ready to appear the examination because he had joined for higher studies. The complainant had not produced the Income Certificate in time. So the CDIT registration was not completed. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party.
 

5. The POINT :- It is admitted that the complainant was a student in the opposite party's institution. The complainant paid the course fees amounting to Rs.5,000/- as per fees structure of the opposite party which is not under dispute. It is also not under dispute that he had completed his course. But he was denied the opportunity to appear the examination. The complainant is examined as PW1. He has produced Ext.P1(series), the receipts from the opposite party's institution. Ext.P2 is a copy of the notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party. But he did not give any reply. PW1 stated that he had completed the course on 1.06.2006, but he could not attend the examination at that time. In the cross examination of PW1, he stated that he joined in Degree course. So he wants to refund the fees. It is clear that there was gross deficiency on the part of the opposite party in denying the opportunity to present himself for the examination. Therefore the opposite party is bound to refund Rs.5,000/- paid by the complainant by way of course fees. But the complainant completed the course in opposite party's institution. The complainant lost one year at a very crucial time. Taking into consideration the competition trend in the employment area, the loss of an year is very crucial. Considering all these matters, we feel that the half amount of claim, Rs.2,500/- by way of remitted fee would refund to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to the cost and compensation of this petition which we would limit to Rs.2,000/-. The opposite party will pay the above amounts within 2 months.
 

In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,500/- half of the fees remitted and Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation of the petition within 2 months of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of September, 2008
 

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Dhaneesh Gopi

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits

On the side of Complainant

Ext.P1(series) - Photocopy of Cash Bills/Receipts(7 Nos)

Ext.P2(series) - Photocopy of Postal Receipt, AD Card etc.

On the side of Opposite party :

Nil